knowledge is the start point to everybody to know something
No - if you are asking about use in a direct pragmatic sense of how to construct or condition a building. What is the use of philosophy in general? It is to ask questions about the things around you.
In architecture it determines your world view, and in turn conditions the way you think about what kind of architecture is appropriate. So one 'philosophical' question might be is, is curtainwall architecture appropriate for the Middle East? Not from a technological standpoint, but from an historical or social standpoint. Would a different method of construction be more appropriate? How might it be more closely related to the historical and social conditions of the area?
Another way of looking at this is to look at your existing environment, and ask why it is that way, instead of some other way - more or less sustainable, more or less technological, more or less car oriented. These are underlying philosophical questions that determine the environment you live in and design.
No - if you are asking about use in a direct pragmatic sense of how to construct or condition a building. What is the use of philosophy in general? It is to ask questions about the things around you.
In architecture it determines your world view, and in turn conditions the way you think about what kind of architecture is appropriate. So one 'philosophical' question might be is, is curtainwall architecture appropriate for the Middle East? Not from a technological standpoint, but from an historical or social standpoint. Would a different method of construction be more appropriate? How might it be more closely related to the historical and social conditions of the area?
Another way of looking at this is to look at your existing environment, and ask why it is that way, instead of some other way - more or less sustainable, more or less technological, more or less car oriented. These are underlying philosophical questions that determine the environment you live in and design.
If we are talking about architecture in reductive, linear, myopic way then it is not useful at all.
In contrast if we take architecture and allied art of building, in its complexity, plurality and hybridity then of course a deeper interpretation, hence philosophy is useful. What would be the interpretation and practice of architecture and spaces without Lefebvre, Herzberger, Foucault, Jane Jacobs, Frampton and others?
Kahn, Corbusier, Chadirji, Fathy, Doshi, Zumthor, Piano, Murcutt and many others from practice have contributed to the discourse.
Rightly Foucault challenges this distinction between object and meaning/interpretation: 'a discourse - a 'discursive formation' - refuses the obvious distinction between a brick and a word (both may be elements of a discourse)'.
[see Foucault and Architecture, Paul Hirst, AA Files, No. 26 (Autumn 1993)]
Not sure that most of what we get is very good philosophy really. Utility is itself worthy of philosophical debate, so they could have a field day with your question.
I think we can also rephrase the question the other way round. Architecture has been - through its history - a way of exploring and testing our understanding of the world. We can think of architecture as a way of exploring and reflecting on philosophical questions as well as vice versa.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy